Revek:I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.

That's impressive. You don't drive cars on roads, bridges, or overpasses? You don't eat food grow in the U.S., or shipped in from outside the country? You don't ever travel across publicly maintained land? Bought a car that is subject to safety regulations? Use a public utility such as power, water, telephone, or internet? You defend your own land with your own army? You don't watch television regulated by the FCC or look at a clock that has time set by NIST created standards? You don't use federally issued currency, or send or receive anything by the postal service? You've never called the police for anything? Needed to have friends or family helped by the fire department?

Truly, you receive nothing from the government. I salute you, citizen. You're a beacon to all of us.

Revek:I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government. I get no money for my autistic son. No money for my disabling medical condition including no medical help at all. I make half the median income for the state. The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity. We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves. They expect someone else to pay for it. Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

I like how YOU decided to harm your son in the long term by not getting offered treatment early in his life when it could have made a difference. I too have an autistic son. You know what I would do to get him even slightly closer to mainstream so he can have a happy and healthy (and ultimately more productive) life? ANYTHING. I'll take from the government, borrow against my house, take money from my aged parents, strangers. Want to see me streak? Pay for my son's therapy and I'll even let you spank my bare ass.

So I'm going to say it. Your libertarian principles broke libertarian principles. You, by your neglect, harmed another. You HARMED your own SON! That makes you a highly principled monster and if your son later is not able to function, we the people have to care for his well being after you are gone.

There is a role of the state. One of those roles is to keep me from punching you in your evil face and taking your son away from you because you are a neglectful mouthbreather. Hope your piety keeps you well in your old age, because your son will be too busy struggling to help you.

Revek:I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.

Except the roads you drive on, the ability to power the computer you spout your stupidity from, the clean water you drink, the cleaner air you breathe, the safe food you eat and the safety in knowing your country is secure from the rest of the world.

Khellendros:Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.

That's impressive. You don't drive cars on roads, bridges, or overpasses? You don't eat food grow in the U.S., or shipped in from outside the country? You don't ever travel across publicly maintained land? Bought a car that is subject to safety regulations? Use a public utility such as power, water, telephone, or internet? You defend your own land with your own army? You don't watch television regulated by the FCC or look at a clock that has time set by NIST created standards? You don't use federally issued currency, or send or receive anything by the postal service? You've never called the police for anything? Needed to have friends or family helped by the fire department?

Truly, you receive nothing from the government. I salute you, citizen. You're a beacon to all of us.

No, actually, he is a self-deluded asshole who would survive about ten seconds without an organized society and government to provide for and protect him - like every other stupid, self-deluded "libertarian".Objectivism is autism expressed as an existential philosophy.Libertarianism is autism expressed as a political philosophy.

F*ck libertarians. While it is refreshing to see more people come out against war, prohibition, and government-enforced discrimination against gays, their anti-tax, anti-social program, anti-regulation, "I got mine" BS just shows how disconnected they are from the realities of the majority of the people in this country, the working poor. We aren't "fat and happy, sucking on the government teat" like so many seem to think. That "teat" puts out some pretty thin milk, let me tell you. In the richest country in the world, working 2 jobs, my children wouldn't be able to see a doctor without government assistance for their health insurance. My wife's pregnancy costs, especially when she had complications, would have put us in debt for 20+ years without government assistance for her health care. When I lost my job when the economy crashed, and my wife and I received cash aide and food stamps, were we eating steak and laying about watching satellite tv? No, we were scrambling to find jobs because the cash aide and food stamps barely enabled us to survive, and that was on top of paying no rent because we moved in with her folks. And we live in the generous socialist paradise of California. Who knows how it would have been in some teatard hell-hole state in the Midwest or South.

I come from an upper middle-class family. I was a conservative Republican in high school. Although social issues had already changed my politics by the time the I had the experiences recounted above, experiencing the reality of poverty first hand, trying to live, to survive, "on the dole" solidified me as a Socialist. The 1% in this country, who have so much wealth they couldn't hope to ever spend it all... f*ck them. They have no right to wealth so obscene when children down the street go hungry or can't see a doctor, when parents have to work multiple jobs and still rely on government assistance to scrape by. By tax or by sword, there will be some equalization of wealth in this country, and the sooner the better.

Revek:I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government. I get no money for my autistic son. No money for my disabling medical condition including no medical help at all. I make half the median income for the state. The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity. We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves. They expect someone else to pay for it. Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

And what does that get you...?

Pocket Ninja:I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.

Most libertarians I know are just kids who think the world is just the way it is, it requires to oversight or effort the roads just exist the oil in your furnace and gas in your car just appears the environment and food safety just kinda works itself out.

I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government. I get no money for my autistic son. No money for my disabling medical condition including no medical help at all. I make half the median income for the state. The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity. We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves. They expect someone else to pay for it. Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

Deucednuisance:drp: The Democrats hate us because we don't hate corporations and the 2nd Amendment like they do. They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.

Whut da actualfuq?

I live in the Democratic Paradise of Maryland, and have for 45 years. I'm a Democrat, raised by Democrats, and am surrounded by Democrats.

I have never, not once, met a single Democratic constituent who demands that their representatives continue to prosecute the "drug war". We all know that it is futile and worse, counter-productive.

Fark's libertarian hate is easy to understand, but disappointing nonetheless.

The Republicans hate us because we don't hate gay people and the 1st & 4th Amendments like they do. They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.

The Democrats hate us because we don't hate corporations and the 2nd Amendment like they do. They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.

Taxes? It's the Tea Party that's rabidly and irrationally anti-tax. I'm quite content paying taxes to keep all the gears of civilization turning.

In a libertarian US, a couple of gay men could get married in Omaha while smoking joints, and then buy matching pink select-fire AR-15s while honeymooning in San Francisco. And then they'd check the 'married filing jointly' box on their 1040 and pay their taxes to keep the roads paved and the 4th-Amendment-obeying cops' salaries paid. But that kind of freedom would just upset too many of you R/D slaves, I guess.

SovietCanuckistan:I have always wondered why all the Libertarian threads on Fark go so long and get so many reactions.

Because for Years now Libertarians have tried to "educate" everyone on what Libertarians really are, since we keep insisting on judging them by the actions and words of the people who call themselves Libertarians.

Do i defy your expectations? Do you understand why so many libertarians sound like children to me? I'm waving it in your face now, because you are a known jerk, but i don't think it represents anything but my foolish pride.

bopis:Liberal thinking:Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!

I'll bet you thought that was clever when you were typing it. Unfortunately, it just comes off as simple minded.

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.

Except the roads you drive on, the ability to power the computer you spout your stupidity from, the clean water you drink, the cleaner air you breathe, the safe food you eat and the safety in knowing your country is secure from the rest of the world.

....yep government does nothing for us.

All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Revek:I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government. I get no money for my autistic son. No money for my disabling medical condition including no medical help at all. I make half the median income for the state. The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity. We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves. They expect someone else to pay for it. Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

Yeah, um. You're not starving to death.

and you have a computer or phone and internet.

You're WAY better off than most people. And most of that isn't because of your singular heroic, Herculan effort, but because of the massive collaborative way that people who believe in this country work together. The Eastern states - which are more reliably blue - create most of the wealth in this nation, and you Looting red-staters can just STFU and GBTW.

"Many of the members in our group [Young Americans for Liberty] were not even 10 years old when 9/11 happened," Frazee said. "They've grown up with war, and they are war-weary."

I'd like someone to explain how the fark someone who was 10 years in 2001 is "war weary"?

Is it the draft? Can't be that since there's no draft.

Is it the rationing? Nope, no rationing either. We have vast amounts staples and cheap consumer goods. We exist in a time with levels of consumerism that are unprecedented in human history. There's barely even any price inflation. The war has not interfered in any way with young people's ability to get the latest iPhone.

Is it the constant news focus that every day brings a brutal view of war and the toll it takes on soldiers and civilians into all of our living rooms? Nope, the wars we engage in are barely ever mentioned. We don't even have to hear about them.

In what possible way do the wars we fight effect college age kids who are not in the military? What sacrifices have they been forced to make for the war?

The only way someone who was 10 on 9/11 could possibly be "war weary" is; a) if they are actually a soldier or b) if they are the biggest farking pussy in the world who doesn't have even the slightest clue what war weary really means. Let me guess which of those categories most of these young libertarians fall into. My mother in law, who as a child lived through the Siege of Leningrad, has a right to use the term "war weary". An American twenty something who's never been in the military does not.

Phil McKraken:No, I'm saying that both explicitly state to me that they won't try harder because the government will tax them, regulate their jobs, fix interest rates on loans, confiscate their marijuana, and whatever. You see, there's no reason to get a $50k/year job if the Income Tax takes any part of it. It's the government's fault for denying them the opportunity to work without interference.

to that argument, they do somewhat have a point. A better way to make that fair for the taxpayer and the recipiant would to make sure that increasing your working wage would always increase the money you brought home. Currently that is not the case.

Voiceofreason01:Kome: My individual experiences are sufficient to formulate policies that should be in place to dictate to a country of 320,000,000 other people what they should expect from their government.

my individual experience is that libertarians are people who A: don't understand how a modern economy works and B: are greedy, selfish farkers who are looking for a way to justify not paying taxes

"Fark you, I've got mine" sums it up nicely

My individual experience is that statists are people who A: don't understand how a modern economy works and B: are greedy, selfish farkers who are looking for a way to justify violently forcing others to fund their pet projects in social control.

"Fark you, I don't have to play nice, I just take what I want" sums it up nicely.

The "libertarians" I know are usually washed up losers in their 30s who tell me that they'd quit waiting tables and "get a real job" except for the fact that government ruins everything. There's no point in trying.

I'm not 100% LP.org "Libertarian" because I do recognize that there are some government safety nets, consumer protections, and public goods/infrastructure that are valuable, but on average I do agree with their general philosophy that a smaller, more efficient government is better than what we have. True tax & spend liberals have always pissed me off, but as I've grown up into the semi-responsible adult that I am I've been driven away from the Republicans by the extreme hypocrisy of social conservatives who want government out of our wallets but in our bedrooms.

What pisses me off even more than a tax & spender or a social conservative, though, is the tea party types suddenly claiming a "libertarian" viewpoint when 90% of the tea party would shoot a queer or colored boy on sight. You folks can't cherry-pick small government platitudes without accepting that your wanting to live free from interference means that mixed race gay couple in town also gets to live free from interference. If Obama wasn't elected you would still be worshiping at the altar of Karl Rove and not yelling about a rapidly expanding debt, even though W added the second-highest amount to it.

Khellendros:Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.

That's impressive. You don't drive cars on roads, bridges, or overpasses? You don't eat food grow in the U.S., or shipped in from outside the country? You don't ever travel across publicly maintained land? Bought a car that is subject to safety regulations? Use a public utility such as power, water, telephone, or internet? You defend your own land with your own army? You don't watch television regulated by the FCC or look at a clock that has time set by NIST created standards? You don't use federally issued currency, or send or receive anything by the postal service? You've never called the police for anything? Needed to have friends or family helped by the fire department?

Truly, you receive nothing from the government. I salute you, citizen. You're a beacon to all of us.

That seems to be the main problem I find in their reasoning. It's all about "I do not receive any money from the government for.............", totally oblivious to the benefits they indirectly recieve through infrastructure and services. It's not about finding a teat to suckle on so we don't have to fend for ourselves, it's about common sense. The government of the U.S. isn't some despotic entity, it is a system set up by our founding fathers and supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people"; if it is screwed up we did it to ourselves.

One function of the government in my opinion is to be sort of the national "warehouse bulk shopping club" of the American people. There are certain essential services that are needed which cannot be provided on an induvidual basis comercially in a cost effective manner. The intent behind these services are not to create a dependence on the government or enslave the masses, but provide a necessary service at a "bulk discount" rate. Rather than enslaving the citizen, it is freeing them to pursue greater things than just the basics in life. Services like education, healhcare, etc.

Seems to me the freedom right leaning Libertarians wasnt to offer is freedom to be dumb, go hungry, get sick & die, and go broke working like a slave in a futile effort trying to not to be dumb, hungry, and get sick & die.

I am a socialist - I believe the necessities of life should be provided for free to the general public (though comfort is not a requirement, just health; stack the shelter beds like Japanese tube hotels and give out energy bars made out of cardboard for all I care).

I'm also in the top 20% of earners nationally, have never received social safety net aid, and refuse to rely on others for anything I can do for myself.

Liberal thinking:Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!

leadmetal:This idea that the past was 'libertarian' is outright bullshiat. It was a time where the wealthy exerted more overt control over the state and/or the government's utter failure in its basic advertised mission. Although not really failure because it was never designed to do anything but serve the wealthy in the first place.

In the Libertarian Utopia the government has no role in preventing the wealthy from using their influence to exploit others. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

leadmetal:You know why employers had unsafe workplaces? Because your government was in their pockets in a much more overt way, plus the biggest companies hadn't yet learned to use regulation as a weapon against upstart competition. When a worker was injured in those days your government's courts, you know the government's monopoly on dispute resolution, told the worker or his surviving family to go pound sand. It was a failure of your government to enforce basic liability.

They had unsafe workplaces because it was far cheaper to operate and the fact that there were no regulations in place for them to do otherwise. The legal system cost money just as it does now. The idea that workers making slave wages in factories somehow would be able to afford the costs in a corporate court of law is laughably absurd.

leadmetal:Children worked because of that was the cultural notion at the time.

It wasn't just a "cultural notion"; it was a necessity. Poor families couldn't survive without every member working. It wasn't the dream of every parent to have their children risk death and dismemberment by working in factories or cleaning out chimneys.

leadmetal:As far as dumping chemicals into the water supply I am glad you mentioned that. Under a libertarian society that is not permitted.

LOL! Without a mechanism of enforcement then you've got nothing. I love the naive notion that industries are all moral paragons who would never cut corners and operate as responsible citizens. They only do bad things because they were coerced by Big Bad Government.

leadmetal:People started suing over pollution pretty early on but your government insisted that they had to prove the pollution was harmful. Under a strict libertarian property rights system these companies would be liable by default. Why? Because they were contaminating other people's property.

Um, contamination requires proof that the pollution was harmful as well.

leadmetal:Ever notice that countries that had no libertarian aspect to their history lagged in these areas or are still completely screwed up to this day? Find a country where the government has always had complete power and there you will find a lack of any sort of building codes, children working in sweat shops, and pollution galore. China for instance. Very powerful government able to force anyone to do anything and look at it.

Nobody is advocating for a totalitarian state. But if you want to look at countries with far fewer regulations try Mexico, Bangladesh, or India. Truly we need to strive for their standards of living.

cubic_spleen:The self-confessed American right-wing 'libertarians' are really Republicans who long for a return to feudalism, in the laughably false assumption that they will be inside the castle walls.

We are already living in modern feudalism. It's more appropriately called corporatism and actually it's worse than the dark age kind in many respects. The mechanisms just aren't as overt. They are done with financial control and scientific social manipulation and so on, but the end result, the effective result when it comes to money and power and living in luxury off the labor of others is everything medieval feudalism was and more. These days what we are seeing is the shift to the overt. Where it isn't hidden anymore. Both team D and team R cheer it forward.

Lawyers With Nukes:UndeadPoetsSociety: Can I be weary of having my tax money used for mass murder overseas, instead of having actual infrastructure?

They say that taxes are the price of living in a civilized society.

But it is civil to force someone (under threat of violence) to pay for something they consider morally reprehensible?

If you should withhold that portion of your taxes that goes to our continual campaigns of mass murder, in what way will things start to become uncivil? Armed agents pointing their shotguns at you and your family, demanding payment...that's how.

Taken this way, taxes are "the price of civility" in more ways than one.

If you do not pay your taxes, you are a thief. You have stolen from your fellow citizens. It is entirely right and proper that police should use force to apprehend thieves and see that they are punished from their crimes. Using force to apprehend and punish criminals is absolutely part of a civil society.

No matter how "morally reprehensible" you think taxes are, you broke the law, you are a criminal, and yes I DO hope that big, burly men with big-ass shotguns arrest your skeeving, criminal ass and haul you away in handcuffs. Ideally it should be a quiet arrest without the need to draw guns, but if you or any member of your family resist arrest or otherwise try to interfere, then they get to do whatever is necessary to put down such resistance, up to burning your house down and driving over the flaming rubble in radioactive tanks. Repeatedly.

And I will applaud them and buy them doughnuts for doing their job.

Now, if you truly believe that you were standing up for your rights by committing an act of civil disobedience, then live up to it by accepting your arrest, pleading guilty in court and taking your prison sentence with dignity like a true activist. Follow in the footsteps of Martin Luther King, jr, and others by writing letters from jail.

/You could also try a slightly more low-key approach by, say, voting for Libertarian candidates in every election, but hey, since you decided to up the drama by talking about shotguns being pointed and your kids, I thought I'd play your game with you.

GoldSpider:If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?

PsiChick:Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.

In theory I agree with you, but anyone reading your posts, or, for that matter, listening to any Libertarian, should be aware that "force" in Libertarian-ese is a term of art. It does not mean what most people think of when they hear the word "force." When used in Libertarian-ese, it pretty much means "anything Libertarians don't like."

Lawyers With Nukes: - contracts made under coercion are invalid

In principle, yes, though again I suspect you have a rather quirky definition of "under coercion" in mind. If you mean, "someone literally held a knife to my throat and swore he'd kill me if I didn't sign," sure.

Lawyers With Nukes: - you aren't bound by a contract made by your ancestors

Not as such, no. But see the next point.

Lawyers With Nukes: - refusal to leave the land of your birth is not tacit agreement with all or part of such contracts

Here's where it all falls down. By living in a country, you DO implicitly agree to play by the rules of that country. Joining a society is not strictly a matter of opting in. When you're born into a society, you're part of it, like it or not, until such time as you leave it. Here are your only three options:

1. You can obey the rules of the society you're in, even the parts you don't like (such as paying taxes).2. You can leave the society (but that will probably involve physically moving to a location outside the society).3. You can break the rules and accept the consequences, be they fines, imprisonment, or whatever.

I'm sorry (well, no, honestly, I'm not), but there IS no fourth option. You can say "well, I never SIGNED anything, so I'm not REALLY part of this society," but you're wrong. Yes, like it or not, you "signed the contract" when you were born, and you signed it again every single day you remain in the society. The GOOD news is, our society allows you to believe wrong headed things and say wrongheaded things, and you're free to THINK you're not part of society to your hearts' content, and you can CLAIM the laws don't apply to you if you like. That's the joy of free speech.

But when push comes to shove, you WILL obey the rules or you WILL leave or you WILL get punished. That is how it is, and how it should be. And if you don't like it, tough.

You can also, I might add, try to CHANGE the society you live in, via the process the society has for change (such as voting, in the USA, or writing letters to your congressman, etc.) Or you could try violent revolution, I suppose, if you're fully prepared to accept the likelihood that you'll die in the attempt. But these are outside the scope of what I was talking about earlier.

Revek:Thrag: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government. I get no money for my autistic son. No money for my disabling medical condition including no medical help at all. I make half the median income for the state.

The Median income in AR is ~$40,000, so that would put you at 20,000, which does make you eligible for some assistance.

You could get your kid medical insurance under the "ArKids B" plan. With only one child the income cutoff is $22,980.00. So at $20k you would be eligible.

While you make too much for SNAP, you are under the max income for the "national school lunch program", "summer food service program" and "child and adult care food program" which subsidize food for your child.

You would also likely qualify for the "Title V, Children with Special Health Care Needs" program.

The "Arkansas low income home energy assistance program" has a cutoff for a two person household at $22,695. So you are at the edge of eligibility for that one too.

You also qualify for (at least on the basis of income) your states weatherization assistance program that could help you save on energy bills.

Doesn't matter where you get your numbers it matters where Arkansas DHS get theirs.

I am getting my numbers from the websites of the actual programs and/or Arkansas government websites.

Revek:I have to pay for my utilities. I have to pay for my food. I have to pay taxes for my roads 10% sales tax here. I pay all the time in spite of what some of you have spouted. None of the public utilities around here are government owned. The local municipal water systems are not regulated by the public service commission in this state. So go on tell me how the government is supplying me with so much and how i'm not paying for it. I pay taxes to pay for single moms who get 600 bucks a kid from the state, free healthcare, rental assistance, assistance on their utilities and so on. I filled out forms time and time again to get some kind of assistance for my son. The simple fact despite everyone's ignorance is that I wold have make less than 20,000 a year to qualify for anything other than some pathetic program called tefra which guess what costs $75 a month and doesn't cover shiat. I get it that you all think its some weakness on my part but your wrong end of story. I will make on allowance I do have police and fire protection. Of course right now 1% of that 10% sales tax I'm paying is going to build a new fire station.

Most Libertarians at this point would say that you bring this on yourself by continuing to live in such a shiathole of a state.

Another thread demonstrating once again that the reason people avoid and often mock libertarians is entirely do to libertarians themselves. Surely a long line of angry rants amounting to "If I don't get government assistance then nobody should!" will finally convince people that libertarian is not just a nice sounding code word for selfish prick.

Revek:I have to pay for my utilities. I have to pay for my food. I have to pay taxes for my roads 10% sales tax here. I pay all the time in spite of what some of you have spouted. None of the public utilities around here are government owned. The local municipal water systems are not regulated by the public service commission in this state. So go on tell me how the government is supplying me with so much and how i'm not paying for it. I pay taxes to pay for single moms who get 600 bucks a kid from the state, free healthcare, rental assistance, assistance on their utilities and so on. I filled out forms time and time again to get some kind of assistance for my son. The simple fact despite everyone's ignorance is that I wold have make less than 20,000 a year to qualify for anything other than some pathetic program called tefra which guess what costs $75 a month and doesn't cover shiat. I get it that you all think its some weakness on my part but your wrong end of story. I will make on allowance I do have police and fire protection. Of course right now 1% of that 10% sales tax I'm paying is going to build a new fire station.

So in a nutshell, your backasswards hellhole of a state, working along libertarian principles, hasn't provided you with the services you want and would be helpful to your son. And you've turned that despair into the illusion that it's because you're all bootstrappy. Shouldn't you be happy that the state you live in allows that public infrastructure is in private hands? Isn't that part of the whole libertarian ethos? Shouldn't you be happy that you couldn't get the assistance your son needs through a social safety net? I would have expected you to say something along the lines of "my son was denied services for his autism! Outstanding, it gives him a chance to pull himself up by his bootstraps!" If the libertarian paradise you live in is so great, why do you sound so bitter?

plewis:Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government. I get no money for my autistic son. No money for my disabling medical condition including no medical help at all. I make half the median income for the state. The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity. We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves. They expect someone else to pay for it. Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

I like how YOU decided to harm your son in the long term by not getting offered treatment early in his life when it could have made a difference. I too have an autistic son. You know what I would do to get him even slightly closer to mainstream so he can have a happy and healthy (and ultimately more productive) life? ANYTHING. I'll take from the government, borrow against my house, take money from my aged parents, strangers. Want to see me streak? Pay for my son's therapy and I'll even let you spank my bare ass.

So I'm going to say it. Your libertarian principles broke libertarian principles. You, by your neglect, harmed another. You HARMED your own SON! That makes you a highly principled monster and if your son later is not able to function, we the people have to care for his well being after you are gone.

There is a role of the state. One of those roles is to keep me from punching you in your evil face and taking your son away from you because you are a neglectful mouthbreather. Hope your piety keeps you well in your old age, because your son will be too busy struggling to help you.

Wow, farklibs sure get mad when you point out that everyone else isn't a mooching deadbeat like they are.

ciberido:To give just one example: Liberals and Conservatives disagree about the education system because Conservatives (among other things) don't want to spend enough money on public schools. But Libertarians want to spend NO MONEY AT ALL on the public school system, which is far worse.

So it appears that you are focusing on the most extreme minority of libertarians.

one of the things about Libertarianism that I personally find most disquieting is my perception that, at it's core, it's really nothing more that pure,unadulterated selfishness and shortsightedness systematized.

That's what we think of you, too.

Libertarianism, by contrast, seems like it would shut out in the cold anyone who wasn't born rich, regardless of how ardently the disenfranchised tried to follow it themselves.

It's unfortunate that you choose to believe this.

You'll probably say I've mischaracterized Libertarianism, and maybe I have, but if so, you'll then have to explain to me what provisions Libertarianism makes for people who aren't born wealthy.

A much better chance to have a much higher quality of life than they would have under your system for 99% of people.

How, exactly, is a person who doesn't start off with enough money supposed to get an education, health care, meaningful work, a home (at least a shared apartment), and so on, all the while paying for the private police, mail, roads, fire, health insurance, etc. that are (thanks to Libertarianism) no longer provided by the government?

I won't bother speaking on behalf on anarchos. I think they're morons. But if you have some questions about mainstream libertarianism, I'd be happy to respond.

ciberido:Fifth (and as this is highly subjective I REALLY can't claim to speak for all Liberals) one of the things about Libertarianism that I personally find most disquieting is my perception that, at it's core, it's really nothing more that pure,unadulterated selfishness and shortsightedness systematized. Conservatism, for all that I think it's wrong, at least seems to be trying to make the nation a better place for everyone, or at least for everyone willing to follow their rules. Libertarianism, by contrast, seems like it would shut out in the cold anyone who wasn't born rich, regardless of how ardently the disenfranchised tried to follow it themselves.

You'll probably say I've mischaracterized Libertarianism, and maybe I have, but if so, you'll then have to explain to me what provisions Libertarianism makes for people who aren't born wealthy. How, exactly, is a person who doesn't start off with enough money supposed to get an education, health care, meaningful work, a home (at least a shared apartment), and so on, all the while paying for the private police, mail, roads, fire, health insurance, etc. that are (thanks to Libertarianism) no longer provided by the government?

These are real concerns about libertarianism.

Short answers:

Yes, it's based on selfishness. But not Shortsightedness. EVERYONE, everywhere, acts selfishly. It's long been a philosophical quest to find the truly altruistic action.Since everyone is acting selfishly, do we want a system whereby people can personally benefit by taking wealth from others without any real accountability? Or do we want a system where you can only benefit by helping your fellow man in his own selfishness? The first situation is a situation under govt, especially those highly-regulatory, highly-taxing govts of the West today. The second situation is the situation of a free market: you can only benefit by benefiting others.

To your second concern there's five related answers: (1) the wealthy are typically the most philanthropic. (2) You only get wealthy by increasing the wealth of a large number of people in meaningful ways (in a free market). (3) A free market has been responsible for providing all of those things in the past, and in some areas today, usually with much better accountability to the users than a govt system. (4) The enormous gains that could be realized by freeing the market would make all of those things cheap as dirt. (5) Those things all are being paid for already today, just not by the end-user. And if you follow the trail of waste, corruption, and greed you'll find that 70% of the money goes to upper-middle-class bureaucrats while only 30% actually goes to the provision of these necessary services.

HighOnCraic:Unfortunately, some fairly prominent libertarians want to allow the states to recriminalize it.

Care to name names?

HighOnCraic:As for ending the war on drugs, that's great, I mean it worked in Portugal, so I guess it would work here, as long as we had the same kind of healthcare system that Portugal has in order to provide treatment.

Ending the war on drugs does not necessitate taxpayer-funded treatment programs. That's not to say it isn't a good idea though.

Garble:Lawyers With Nukes: Garble: The fundamental lie of modern libertarianism is that you can cleanly divide all issues between "social" and "economic". But economic injustice is and has always been the largest social issue in existence./money is power//the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

Translation: we want to protect people with no money, from people with lots of money.

So far so good.

So lets create another group of people, and give them lots of money so they can protect us. Because the danger is people with lots of money...wait, what?/not sure if you're serious

More like, let's balance the power of people through democracy. The fact that there is so much money in government is a failing of that principle.

Lets protect ourselves from other people with guns, by creating a group of people with guns. Because people with guns are dangerous.Lets protect ourselves from other people with money, by creating a group of people with money. Because people with money are dangerous.

Sprinkling the magic pixie dust of "democracy" over the above statements doesn't make them any less absurd or dangerous. Indeed, democracy is easily scammed and rigged when used to try to control the situation, ie fighting against a small group of coordinated, determined, and powerful actors. Reason and evidence clearly demonstrate this.

Or don't pay any attention to history, and just keep piling on more derp.

Phil McKraken:Lawyers With Nukes: Phil McKraken: The "libertarians" I know are usually washed up losers in their 30s who tell me that they'd quit waiting tables and "get a real job" except for the fact that government ruins everything. There's no point in trying.

Well that's not very nice. I'm sure a lot of Farkers are in the food services or hospitality industry. Though not a high status occupation, being a server is an honorable and honest way to put food on the table.

I don't really recommend you figure out your political views by looking at a person's status, and then using that as proof that their arguments are valid. Logic doesn't work that way.

I have about 15 years in the food service business, mainly waiting tables. Both of the guys I'm talking about I met over 15 years ago. The "philosophy" isn't about governance for them. It's about excusing their laziness. Both of them are smart and talk about going back to school, getting jobs engineering software, etc. But then neither wants to engage in the student loan process, go to state schools or getting a job that doesn't pay mainly in cash. Both of them refuse to agree with me, but both also understand how things appear to me.

How does saying that "govt shouldn't reward the lazy" or any other teaching of libertarianism excuse their laziness? If anything, it burdens them with knowing that they are getting what they deserve for being lazy.

unlikely:It has been my experience that I agree with some and disagree with some because there is no consistent core of beliefs from one libertarian to the next.

Libertarian discussions often turn into "more libertarian than thou". If you put 5 libertarians in a room, the once closest to Anarcho-capitalist will complain that he is in a room with 4 statist drones, the one closest to Republican/Democrat will complain that he is in a room with Minarchists, and the other three will shake their heads at how everyone else in the room is naive about how the world works.

dentalhilljack:I'm not 100% LP.org "Libertarian" because I do recognize that there are some government safety nets, consumer protections, and public goods/infrastructure that are valuable, but on average I do agree with their general philosophy that a smaller, more efficient government is better than what we have. True tax & spend liberals have always pissed me off, but as I've grown up into the semi-responsible adult that I am I've been driven away from the Republicans by the extreme hypocrisy of social conservatives who want government out of our wallets but in our bedrooms.

What pisses me off even more than a tax & spender or a social conservative, though, is the tea party types suddenly claiming a "libertarian" viewpoint when 90% of the tea party would shoot a queer or colored boy on sight. You folks can't cherry-pick small government platitudes without accepting that your wanting to live free from interference means that mixed race gay couple in town also gets to live free from interference. If Obama wasn't elected you would still be worshiping at the altar of Karl Rove and not yelling about a rapidly expanding debt, even though W added the second-highest amount to it.

I agree with your post, you stated things much better than I could have since I'm a rambly little farker. I, like you am not 100%, dyed in the wool, radical libertarian, but I am a registered Libertarian. Could never get down with either the Dems or Repubs, never been registered with either party. I chose to register Libertarian because I tend to really like the folks that they support running for office, at least in Colorado. If the Libertarians have a caucus for the mid-terms in my state, I would like to be able to participate. That's something I wouldn't be able to do if I was registered Unaffiliated. Oh, and the Tea Partiers may go fly a kite-they have very little business comparing themselves to the majority of Libertarians I know, and I do know a few, seems like the party is growing by leaps and bounds and you know what they say, the bigger the village, the more idiots there are. Every party has it's share of morons contained within it.

Usurper4:mithras_angel: LasersHurt: SovietCanuckistan: I have always wondered why all the Libertarian threads on Fark go so long and get so many reactions.

Because for Years now Libertarians have tried to "educate" everyone on what Libertarians really are, since we keep insisting on judging them by the actions and words of the people who call themselves Libertarians.

This.

Every time someone calling themselves a libertarian does something dumb in the news, I ask my libertarian friends, "What do you think of this?"

Well, isn't this true with almost any group? "Lieberman isn't a real Democrat", "Spector's a RINO"...Christians and Moslems do it all the time, saying that somebody's not a true believer due to their actions. Hell, even Alcoholics Anonymous does it, claiming a near 100% success rate because if you have a drink of alcohol, you're no longer a member of AA.

Yes and no.

I'm not a fan of Barbara Boxer, by any means. I disagree with her on a number of policy issues. But I don't say she's not a Democrat. I say "she's not my kind of Democrat/liberal", and if someone challenged her who had a platform that was any good*, I'd back him... but I don't say "she's not one of us", though others may.

With libertarians, because each one has their own variation on what it means to be a libertarian, regularly takes the position that if they're not in 99% agreement with them, then that other person isn't a "real libertarian".

It comes down to a national platform. Both the Republican and Democratic party have platforms - sets of policy positions that they can point to and can say, "we believe in this". Sure, the Log Cabin Republicans vary off the main, as do the Blue Dog Democrats, but they've both got a baseline that they start from.

Libertarians don't have a baseline that that they, ~as a party~, can really point to and say, "this is what a majority of us believe, and this is how it should be implemented".

People bring up that "types of libertarians" comic regularly, and it is, at least in this case, much more accurate than they would care to admit. With that many divisions, they can't make an effective platform.

/*I'd run against her, but I'd have no chance, and would lose my job in the process if I did run.

Exception Collection:I am a socialist - I believe the necessities of life should be provided for free to the general public (though comfort is not a requirement, just health; stack the shelter beds like Japanese tube hotels and give out energy bars made out of cardboard for all I care).

I'm also in the top 20% of earners nationally, have never received social safety net aid, and refuse to rely on others for anything I can do for myself.

/I challenge anyone to find a person more bootstrappy than I am.

You are in the low percentile of what most socialists believe. For most, a safely net that gives you a minimal standard of living is not "fair". We are paying a lot more than what would constitute your "necessities of life". Too many on the left want taxes to be punitive instead of what they should be, simply a way for government to raise revenues. Pass the fair tax and make the amount of tax rebate that each person gets a level that will allow them to live off of it at a minimal standard of living, and it would take away the incentive to do nothing and sit around collecting welfare. You'd be guaranteed the minimum amount of money, and it wouldn't be at risk of being taken away if you decided to better your life and work a little. There'd be no hidden taxes, and no penalties for making "too much" money, and no reason to squirrel your money away in useless tax shelters.

mithras_angel:LasersHurt: SovietCanuckistan: I have always wondered why all the Libertarian threads on Fark go so long and get so many reactions.

Because for Years now Libertarians have tried to "educate" everyone on what Libertarians really are, since we keep insisting on judging them by the actions and words of the people who call themselves Libertarians.

This.

Every time someone calling themselves a libertarian does something dumb in the news, I ask my libertarian friends, "What do you think of this?"

Well, isn't this true with almost any group? "Lieberman isn't a real Democrat", "Spector's a RINO"...Christians and Moslems do it all the time, saying that somebody's not a true believer due to their actions. Hell, even Alcoholics Anonymous does it, claiming a near 100% success rate because if you have a drink of alcohol, you're no longer a member of AA.

astinkywind:Subby doesn't know what a Libertarian is. *facepalm* did he even read the artical.

and most of the people commenting in this thread do not know what Libertarians, Liberals, or Conservatives are. They just think they do and then issue forth hyperbolic statements in some attempt to at once make someone or group of people with possibly opposing views from themselves look like idiots and themselves look like brilliant political philosophers with all the correct answers.

Did I miss something in TFA, or did Subby just pick out some random article to go along with his headline?

Small l libertarianism is the most accurate descriptor of my political philosophy. I work for the government. I don't think twice about taking whatever handouts are available even while actively opposing them. It's the only rational thing to do.

Thanks for picking up the bulk of the cost of the solar panels that got turned on yesterday on the house you paid me $8000 to buy with the mortgage you subsidize on multiple levels, fellow taxpayers!

plewis:I like how YOU decided to harm your son in the long term by not getting offered treatment early in his life when it could have made a difference. I too have an autistic son. You know what I would do to get him even slightly closer to mainstream so he can have a happy and healthy (and ultimately more productive) life? ANYTHING. I'll take from the government, borrow against my house, take money from my aged parents, strangers. Want to see me streak? Pay for my son's therapy and I'll even let you spank my bare ass.

drp:In a libertarian US, a couple of gay men could get married in Omaha while smoking joints, and then buy matching pink select-fire AR-15s while honeymooning in San Francisco. And then they'd check the 'married filing jointly' box on their 1040 and pay their taxes to keep the roads paved and the 4th-Amendment-obeying cops' salaries paid. But that kind of freedom would just upset too many of you R/D slaves, I guess.

No, in a libertarian state, there would be no 1040, because there would be no income tax. The services given to the average citizen wouldn't include social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, or any type of public assistance. There also wouldn't be much in the way of food or automobile regulation, an no one would have to have thing like auto insurance.

It sounds like you lean slightly libertarian, but embrace none of the ideas they espouse beyond basic social policy.

Revek:I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government. I get no money for my autistic son. No money for my disabling medical condition including no medical help at all. I make half the median income for the state. The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity. We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves. They expect someone else to pay for it. Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

Ok, I'll bite. So, out of principal you deny your child services designed specifically to maximize his potential to become a functioning member of society, with the likely result that down the road when you are no longer around to care for him, he then becomes more dependent on the government for assistance than he may have been had he received therapy? Am I reading that right? Or at this point has he maximized improvement and will remain at his present functional level? I am not snarking, I have a niece and a nephew who are autistic and who, through therapy paid for by taxes, are improving by leaps and bounds. I am close enough to see their progress on an almost daily basis and I know for a fact that had they not had the intensive therapy, they would be far behind where they are now, and would be far more likely to need assistance throughout their adult lives. Statistics bear that out as well. It's madness to take a libertarian stand on the issue of services to the disabled early on when those services can minimize taxpayer support down the road. I know the mileage varies greatly, and some kids will never significantly improve no matter what, but even including that subset, there's no denying the cost effectiveness of early therapy.

someonelse:bopis: Liberal thinking:Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!

I'll bet you thought that was clever when you were typing it. Unfortunately, it just comes off as simple minded.

I'm an idiot for oversimplifying things in a FARK THREAD?That is pretty much my point. Seems like Liberals have a deeper, more special hate for libertarians even though there is probably a lot more common ground. I think that speaks to the closemindedness of the average liberal.Let's decriminalize homosexuality and end the war on drugs, then we can go back to the retard flame war?

The retreat of the intellectual coward. If you disagree, you just, like, don't understand me, dude! My first lesson from Fark was I cannot expect anyone to have an idea what i'm talking about if i'm not expressing myself clearly. Practice that discipline and self-reliance and dazzle us with your brilliant personal philosophy long-form. Right now. Go for it. Nobody is stopping you.

brukmann:Do you understand why so many libertarians sound like children to me?

Because it's easier to compartmentalize people who disagree with you than it is to acknowledge that there is room for overlap between what you consider necessarily competing, mutually-exclusive ideologies?

If you care to engage me with more than name-calling, I'd be happy to explain my own beliefs in greater detail.

but this headline is just full of brick stupid. Whatever Rove-like troll that invented this false equivalency is 'rotfltao' as they say.

Because wanting actual regulation and smart government policies can in no way shape or form be any different than wanting the government to control every aspect of my life. Right?

Fark this nation is farking stupid.

Remember that the actual baseline 100 IQ is relative to the population as a whole at a given point of time. What is 100 today could have been say... 80 or 120 at a different point of time. If we could have a barometer of the sway of that baseline, we could track it's movement.

Politics is as good of a barometer as any,and I think a storm is blowing in, because that motherfarker has been dropping hard and fast.

bopis:Liberal thinking:Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!

While I too have scare a clue what you're blathering about, I will agree that self-described Liberals have more in common with libertarians than they are comfortable admitting.

bopis:Liberal thinking:Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!

star_topology:Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government. I get no money for my autistic son. No money for my disabling medical condition including no medical help at all. I make half the median income for the state. The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity. We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves. They expect someone else to pay for it. Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

>And what does that get you...?

For starters, he self-imposes a perspective from where it will be impossible to understand either conservatives or liberals, neither of which want someone else to pay for their lives. Not true conservatives. Not true liberals. Some time after that, it gets him smacked down by the mighty PN.

Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.

I'm curious about the headline, since it neither reflected anything in the article, nor in my personal experience. The libertarians I know tend to be very self-sufficient, and see that as a manifestation of their values. But I don't know many libertarians, so is there something going on in the broader scope that I don't know?

Revek:I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government. I get no money for my autistic son. No money for my disabling medical condition including no medical help at all. I make half the median income for the state. The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity. We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves. They expect someone else to pay for it. Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

So you are determined to live a shiatty life, if it means your conscience is clean?